This morning I posted an response to a query about the validity of marriages witnessed by an SSPX priest (short answer: they are invalid because of defect of form since the priest is suspended a divinis).
Synchoronicitously…. if that is a word… a reader sent the following from the French site Golias which is, as the sender wrote "more Tablet than the Tablet".
A scary thought but a good way to approach what Golias wrote.
It looks like this might have come from the vigilant CathCon Here is what Golias wrote (not my translation):
From Golias the "more Tablet than the Tablet" French left-wing Catholic journal.
Lefebvrists: Canonical support for fool’s bargain [There's a broad hint at what their attitude is!]
Before writing a Motu proprio on the Lefebvrists, the Curia are now in the process of thinking about an immediate solution with a view to the final reintegration of the fundamentalists. [I think that Golias intends the reader to view "fundamentalists" as "bad". What do you think?]
According to information, or our informants, [which? LOL!] Rome would, following the controversy about the ordinations celebrated recently by the SSPX, like to find a compromise solution, even before the completion of theological discussions.
This would clear the ground and initiate things faster. It is quite likely that the Curia had planned, [That would be the PCED, probably in conjunction with the CDF] under the good care of Monsignor Mario Marini, [buon anima] secretary of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, now deceased, a document, additional to the lifting of the excommunication of the four holy bishops consescrated by Archbishop Lefebvre, lifting the suspension imposed a divinis on the priests and brothers [I don't think that non-clergy can be suspended a divinis. But... get that? Lift the suspension a divinis? Hmmm... that would not, however, give them faculties to say Mass, preach and hear confessions. But it would open the way to the next step: granting them faculties.] of the SSPX. Bish op Bernard Fellay, the superior of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X, showed reluctance (because this form also showed a commitment to respect the authority of local bishops) that Rome then gave up on a similar project of transitional canonical regularisation. Now it is exhumed from oblivion. [I made a suggestion along this line some while back: give them temporary faculties, contingent on the progress of the theological discussions.]
The idea is obviously clever, [What they mean is "sneaky"] even if from a canon, and especially theological, it is not without posing formidable problems. [INSERT CRICKET SOUNDS HERE....?!?] Indeed, it puts in a certain fashion, if only precariously, the cart before the horse in assuming things are resolved when they are not.
In the spirit of Pope Benedict and Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, for very short time again in charge of the case, it would be well to take account of multiple oppositions which would become less easy of the SSPX was in canonical good standing (albeit for a time) and not, in the words of Abbé Claude Barthe, in a state of " canonical weightlessness." This initiative would establish Roman legitimacy (and the undeniable validity of SSPX confessions and marriage services) of the sacraments celebrated by priests of the SSPX. [Well... no... it wouldn't. Lifting the suspension a divinis is not the same step as the granting of faculties. The lifting of the suspension could open the way to delegation, etc.]
In addition, it is a clear encouragement to reluctant bishops, like those of Germany. This idea could lead revitalise even in Rome herself very strong opposition, for example from Cardinals Levada (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) [This is wishful thinking. Does anyone seriously think that if the Pope is behind such a move, the Prefect of the CDF would rise against it? Piffle.] and Re (bishops) [Approaching retirement age... d'ya think he would fight the one who can accept his resignation?] and Bishop Francesco Coccopalmerio, President of the Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts [Again... if the Pope is backing this, is it likely that the head of this dicastery, which participated in the review of the lifting of the excommunications of the SSPX bishops, would rise in opposition?] due to the violation of the law and its spirit that it entails, [Yah... can't have unity, now, can we!] ultimately not affecting the subject (the SSPX can stick to its position) and would be an expedient, an artifice that is temporary solution and ad hoc on a weak basis. Its only advantage is the benefit of the SSPX because it would be a way to support the fraternity. [Well... yes. It would be better to bring the whole shootin' match in, rather than bring in individuals.]
If the Pope were to adopt such a solution, which is possible, it could create an uproar which would be proof of an unbelievable complacency. [Rubbish.]
Read this over again. It is a lesson in "liberal reasoning".